The Georgian capital of Tbilisi is a beautiful yet partly destroyed place, where the natural landscape flows into the city and creates a landscape unique to most former Soviet constructions. Kristof van Assche, Associate Professor, Planning and Community Development Program, St. Cloud State University, Minnesota, at a 19 November 2009 Kennan lecture, thus introduced the city that began looking at in 2003, examining how internal and external pressures on Georgia were affecting the speed of reform in the country and what role planning played in that reform.

Van Assche defined planning as "the coordination of policies and practices with respect to spatial organization," which he emphasized was the most important part of the concept. However, planning had to be reinvented after communism, and this reinvention necessitated innovation in the creation of new roles for planners, government, and business and the acquisition of new knowledge and power. This reinvention started slowly under Shevarnadze, and accelerated after the Rose Revolution, said Van Assche, when planning changed as a result of several factors: a new cult of youth in leadership, a sense of urgency among the populace, Georgia's Western orientation, and land reform as part of economic reform.

"Tbilisi is the pride of the president. He wants to take care of it," stated Assche, who went on to explain that the president is personally involved in any planning, property rights, and land registration policies that affect the capital. However, the speaker noted that this created a tension between the president's heavy-handedness over Tbilisi and the free-market liberalism he espouses. Currently, there are few formal restrictions on development, which amplifies unpredictable behavior from government actors. The field of planning itself has diminished as much of the knowledge from Moscow has disappeared with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the subject has almost vanished from school curriculums, instead replaced with studies of architecture.

Van Assche described several obstructions to creating an environment conducive to successful planning policies in Tbilisi. He told that corruption still exists in Georgia, primarily in high-levels of government; major projects are therefore usually negotiated between important politicians and developers. Speed is also a real problem since planning "logically involves long-term perspective." In addition, the current president's attitude toward planning is ambiguous, making local planning a quite tenuous activity. While some experience feelings of disempowerment, Van Assche stated that others in the administration do not want to give up, and still work to reform planning from within. Van Assche offered one positive case study of planning in the protected areas of nature reserves and parks. "Planning for these areas is seen as a success story," he said, "because money comes from European countries, international organizations like the World Wildlife Fund, and companies like BP. And because it relatively easier, involving less actors and interests."

Van Assche remarked that local government in Georgia is still weak. While some freedoms to innovate at the municipal level do exist, planning still ends up low on agenda, and the presence of rival planning models often means that little progress is made. "Speed and vitality boost innovation even as they counteract it," remarked Assche, who explained that although the central government has created protected areas, it has simultaneously made them more vulnerable because local governments are weak, and can do little planning in the areas around these natural preserves. While the U.S. and various outside NGOs push for very different models of planning, Van Assche believes that Georgians have to make their own choices. "Democracy can only work if there is symbiosis between different levels of government."



By Larissa Eltsefon
Blair Ruble, Director, Kennan Institute